This Is A Civil Matter

Same-sex Marriage

February 23, 2003|By MICHAEL P. LAWLOR

Some type of legal recognition of same-sex couples in our state is necessary and inevitable. The state legislature's Judiciary Committee recently completed an exhaustive review of policy arguments for and against same-sex marriage and civil unions. The result is a compilation of research and testimony that sheds a great deal of light on this fascinating issue.

In the end, arguments against legal recognition seem to boil down to religious doctrine and longstanding tradition. Arguments for recognition are pragmatic and contemporary.

The committee invited a number of experts to testify and answer questions on the two main points in the issue: the potential impact on children and the current state of the law in Connecticut, other states and throughout the world. We also asked our nonpartisan research staff to compile more than 28 separate research and fiscal reports on various issues raised by committee members and citizens.

Although legislators have differing opinions on this issue, I am not convinced that there is any persuasive public policy argument to deny same-sex couples recognition in the form of marriage or civil union:

This is not a budget issue. Our Office of Fiscal Analysis has determined that same-sex marriage, or civil unions, would cost taxpayers nothing. In fact, it might result in a net increase in tax revenues because the ``marriage penalty'' would apply to gay and lesbian married couples.

Children would not be at risk. National and state experts on children endorse legal recognition of same-sex couples and believe that children are no less likely to be happy, healthy and successful when same-sex parents raise them. In fact, these experts were more concerned about the effect that anti-gay bias might have on children than about the parenting skills of gays and lesbians.

Some argue that gay couples can simply sign a contract for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Our researchers have determined that more than two-thirds of Connecticut's 588 state laws that apply to spouses and married couples cannot be contracted for under any circumstances without formal action by the legislature.

The 2000 census revealed that there are at least 7,386 same-sex partner households in our state. This is probably a very low estimate, because common sense tells us that most gay and lesbian couples would be reluctant to check the ``husband/wife'' or ``unmarried partner'' box to describe their relationship with a same-sex household member.

Beyond the testimony and reports, we now know that political and public opinion trends are moving in the direction of tolerance and acceptance of same-sex couples. Last year, a statewide poll indicated that 74 percent of Connecticut adults, including 72 percent of Roman Catholics, support the idea of allowing same-sex couples to register with the state in order to take advantage of some laws regulating and protecting married persons.

During the 2002 elections, pro-same-sex-marriage candidates like myself were targeted for defeat. Several religious denominations combined efforts to send anti-gay mailings into these districts just before Election Day. Each one of the targeted candidates won by a comfortable margin.

Fifty years ago, many legislators elsewhere in the nation spoke out against interracial marriage. I am sure they would be embarrassed to be reminded of their words today. Twelve years ago, several Connecticut legislators used strong language to oppose a bill protecting gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartments solely because of their sexual orientation. That bill became law in 1991. I am sure that there are few, if any, legislators who would want to repeal that law today. Times have changed, and the law must change with the times.

In the weeks and months to come, Connecticut will hear arguments for and against legal recognition. I hope we can all respect the strong religious beliefs that compel some people to object to homosexuality in all circumstances. In the end, however, this debate concerns civil law, not religious doctrine. I would like to believe that most people would support our efforts to extend the protection of state laws to the many same-sex couples whose love and dignity can serve as a model to us all.

Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven, is co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee. The committee's online report on same-sex marriage is at http://www.cga.state.ct.us/jud/PA02-105.htm.